[Mapping Challenge] #1 Asymmetric Maps - Page 2

Namrufus

United States396 Posts

August 24 2011 05:05 GMT

#21

@Zaphod & Samro: I agree that the layout will have to be changed somehow. the map looks a lot more similar to metalopolis than I had intended when I first started on it... I'm going to have to give this some more thought...

The_Templar

your Country52797 Posts

August 25 2011 09:44 GMT

#22

I figured we'd see mostly 3 player maps here...

Samro225am

Germany982 Posts

August 25 2011 10:44 GMT

#23

still we need to see more things!
I'd love to see a few two player maps like wnio's or like iGrok's five player map tbh. crazy!

Ragoo

Germany2773 Posts

August 25 2011 12:53 GMT

#24

On August 25 2011 18:44 TehTemplar wrote:
I figured we'd see mostly 3 player maps here...

Strange, I thought we'd mostly see 2 player maps since there are kinda easier to do ^^

Namrufus

United States396 Posts

August 25 2011 14:18 GMT

#25

On August 25 2011 21:53 Ragoo wrote:

Show nested quote +

Strange, I thought we'd mostly see 2 player maps since there are kinda easier to do ^^

Actually, I think that 3 player asymmetric maps might be the easiest to make, or at least the easiest to balance. If we assume that we give each spawn a vaguely similar main/nat/third, then for a three player map we only need to add the main/nat/third for each player (in different asymmetric positions or whatever), which gives us twelve total bases: the map is already mostly done.

For a two-player map the map maker can add the similar main/nat/third, but this leaves half or more of the map to be picked from all possible asymmetric configurations. Without mirroring, there is even less "framework" to guide the map maker.

For a map with more than 3-5 spawns, you start to run out of room for the spawns and it easy to create with a map with wildly different matches like BGH, or all of the spawns in a big ring around an empty middle, which really isn't that asymmetric at all.

fenX

France127 Posts

August 25 2011 16:59 GMT

#26

Assymetric map is a good opportunity to make a 3 players map, it would actually be harder to make a symetric 3p map.
Anyway I'm going for 3p too, already shown an earlier version in the other topic, i continued working on it and started to play with the aesthetics :
+ Show Spoiler +

I removed the rocks blocking some of the gas geyzers and made some minor adjustements to equalize rush distances.

Also the plains between the 2 southern towers has many randomly placed LoS blockers.

RumbleBadger

322 Posts

August 25 2011 18:33 GMT

#27

On August 26 2011 01:59 fenX wrote:
Assymetric map is a good opportunity to make a 3 players map, it would actually be harder to make a symetric 3p map.
Anyway I'm going for 3p too, already shown an earlier version in the other topic, i continued working on it and started to play with the aesthetics :
+ Show Spoiler +

I removed the rocks blocking some of the gas geyzers and made some minor adjustements to equalize rush distances.

Also the plains between the 2 southern towers has many randomly placed LoS blockers.

A very neat map. Cool aesthetics, too! =D
However, a few points I would like to draw attention to (good and bad):
The third for the 3 o'clock position looks easy harassed with blink or siege tanks... there is a very attractive third on the other side of the nat, too, so this probably isn't very much of a problem, but perhaps something to look at.
A match between the 3 and 11 o'clock positions looks well balanced except that the gold is much more accessible to the 11 o'clock player and the 3 o'clock would have to break the rocks or take the southern island as a fifth. While these are fine options, a gold is obviously preferable and could turn the tide of the game just based on expansion paths.
Why are there rocks blocking one gold but not the other? (In fact the rocks by the other gold make it easier to hold...) There may be a good reason for this that I'm not seeing, but it seems to always give an advantage to the 11 o'clock player (especially against 3 o'clock players as discussed earlier).
The 6 o'clock player could take 5 bases (main, nat, third, fourth, gold) and then would only need to hold the one choke in front of the gold. I realize that the rocks could be broken to allow attack paths, but if the player holds the watch towers, they will see it coming and could flank the opposing army and get an incredible surround easily.
Overall, the expansions setups are nice as each spawn has a quite obvious 4 bases to go to, but I feel like the 3 o'clock position will always be at a disadvantage. A match between the 11 o'clock and 6 o'clock looks very well balanced for a macro game, but I think the one choke to hold all 5 bases for the 6 o'clock player looks a little to strong.

Now I realize that it sounds like I'm bashing really hard on your map, which was not my intention. This map is very good for a non-symmetrical map. A good layout, besides being a little too choky in my opinion. The map is very cool, and I can't wait to see the finished product. =D

Fearlezz

Croatia176 Posts

August 25 2011 18:51 GMT

#28

What happened to gas covered with rocks?

fenX

France127 Posts

August 25 2011 23:32 GMT

#29

On August 26 2011 03:33 RumbleBadger wrote:
The third for the 3 o'clock position looks easy harassed with blink or siege tanks... there is a very attractive third on the other side of the nat, too, so this probably isn't very much of a problem, but perhaps something to look at.

Yeah I noticed that too just a few minutes after I wrote my post v_v"
Already made a change, it's still in siege range for both sides, so it's more about race imbalance than map positionnal. And there are two possible 3rd for each spawn, so I don't think it can be game breaking.
+ Show Spoiler +

On August 26 2011 03:33 RumbleBadger wrote:
A match between the 3 and 11 o'clock positions looks well balanced except that the gold is much more accessible to the 11 o'clock player and the 3 o'clock would have to break the rocks or take the southern island as a fifth. While these are fine options, a gold is obviously preferable and could turn the tide of the game just based on expansion paths.
Why are there rocks blocking one gold but not the other? (In fact the rocks by the other gold make it easier to hold...) There may be a good reason for this that I'm not seeing, but it seems to always give an advantage to the 11 o'clock player (especially against 3 o'clock players as discussed earlier).

I think the xelnaga towers and the rocks leaving only one path make the south gold easier to hold, also the cliff behind it is in 6' territory and is easier to defend than the north gold. Also in north vs east you can take a sneaky ninja expand on the south gold, you can scout north gold more easily, there are 3 paths to it.

On August 26 2011 03:33 RumbleBadger wrote:The 6 o'clock player could take 5 bases (main, nat, third, fourth, gold) and then would only need to hold the one choke in front of the gold. I realize that the rocks could be broken to allow attack paths, but if the player holds the watch towers, they will see it coming and could flank the opposing army and get an incredible surround easily.

That's also the reason why south gold has rocks. Rocks to protect, so rocks to block the gold too.
But I see your point and I don't really like that choke either, maybe I should consider redoing all the center, remove the 2 golds and replace the 2 south towers with a single one there.

On August 26 2011 03:51 Fearlezz wrote:
What happened to gas covered with rocks?

I thought that this kind of map is already quite unusual and hard to understand for the players, rocks gas was adding a bit too much to the originality, I'll use that maybe on a future map.

RumbleBadger

322 Posts

August 27 2011 07:03 GMT

#30

Alright, I've worked out a layout for my map. I have placed resources and spawn points, but I have not done any texturing (well, I dyed each height level a color for viewing purposes, but no actual texture work).

So here it is:

+ Show Spoiler [Overview/Angled] +

Top level is tan tile texture, middle is grass, bottom is dirt.
[image loading]

+ Show Spoiler [Analyzer Summary] +

+ Show Spoiler [BasetoBase and NattoNat] +

+ Show Spoiler [Analyzer Influence] +

+ Show Spoiler [Notes] +

In general the map favors 4 base play as the first 3 expansions are pretty straightforward but the 5th base is usually harder (exception in a bottom left versus top left scenario in which the bottom player could expand into the bottom right main/nat).
Taking the third base usually helps defend the nat (I will be tweaking to top spawns third/nat area to make it cater more to this style).
LoSB will be put in places, just haven't done it yet.
According to analyzer, the bottom right spawn has less influence over the third/fourth base. I realize this is true, but these bases are also fairly easy to defend, so I don't see too much of a problem unless I missed something stupid.
In all possible combinations of spawns, the center of the map is essentially the center of the battlefield. Controlling this area is a high priority.
And I think that's all.

ALL feedback is welcome.

Zaphod Beeblebrox

Denmark697 Posts

August 27 2011 11:51 GMT

#31

I'm starting to like the maps this challenge produce. there are issues ofc, but not horrible ones.

@RumbleBadger: Look at 7 o'clock a bit more. I'm concerned that siege drops on the high ground will be nasty to deal with. the 5 looks like a baaad position for zerg to spawn in. There is no way a zerg can expand away from his opponents without have complete map control - and even then it's hard.

@fenX: I like the layout, and the fact that it encourages 3 base play, but leaves big vulnerabilities for the 3rd base. I don't like the center tho. It seems like there are clear narrow push paths, and flanking or counterattacks are hard because these tactics require much longer paths. In my opinion the 3 needs to be redesigned slightly to make room for a more open center.

RumbleBadger

322 Posts

August 27 2011 16:32 GMT

#32

On August 27 2011 20:51 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
I'm starting to like the maps this challenge produce. there are issues ofc, but not horrible ones.

@RumbleBadger: Look at 7 o'clock a bit more. I'm concerned that siege drops on the high ground will be nasty to deal with. the 5 looks like a baaad position for zerg to spawn in. There is no way a zerg can expand away from his opponents without have complete map control - and even then it's hard.

Sorry, I forgot to clarify that the high ground in between the nat/main will be unpathable. If you are referring to the high ground above the third... + Show Spoiler +

well, here's the thing. As zerg, spawning in this position, I would expand behind mutas to get my third. This would let me easily deal with such drops. I'm not a toss player, so I don't really know what I would do in that case, but I would theorize that I would use an observer to get vision and then just attack it with spread stalkers. If the high ground is a bigger problem than I think it is, then I'll find a way to deal with it, but as of right now I think it's fine.

As for the 5 o'clock. I see what you mean in that the third/fourth are pre-decided and you have to expand towards the center, but to control the third/fourth all you have to do is control the one "choke" (it's pretty wide for a choke, which zerg likes in engagements) between the center and the third/fourth. Beyond this it would be hard to secure another expansion if fighting against the 7 o'clock position, but it's hard for the 7 o'clock position to get onto 5 bases, too. Also, a zerg should be able to effectively deny the fourth of the 7 o'clock position if they are playing well. Personally I don't think those expansions are too difficult to hold, so for now I don't think I'll make any changes to that area.

And while it sounds like I'm just denying everything you say, I really do appreciate the advice as it forces me to think about my map in new ways and reinforce my decisions in my mind.

Zaphod Beeblebrox

Denmark697 Posts

August 27 2011 20:48 GMT

#33

I just saw in the map analyser that the high grounds between main and nat (at 7) are pathable by cliffwalk - so I assume that units can drop on them (maybe this is just an old version). I have no problem with the 3rd base. When you take this base you should have plenty of options to stop a drop on the high ground.
The problem with the 5 is not the defendability of the chokes or bases. The problem is that the zerg has to play with direct pushing and tacling the enemy army directly. This inherently leaves zerg at a disadvantage as the zerg army relies more on mobility and counterattacks.
A terran or protoss could simply push directly into the closest zerg base, besiege it and have no fear whatsoever of expanding two or three times.

RumbleBadger

322 Posts

August 29 2011 23:37 GMT

#34

On August 28 2011 05:48 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
I just saw in the map analyser that the high grounds between main and nat (at 7) are pathable by cliffwalk - so I assume that units can drop on them (maybe this is just an old version). I have no problem with the 3rd base. When you take this base you should have plenty of options to stop a drop on the high ground.

Yeah, I just haven't edited the pathing to stop that yet. Sorry for the confusion.
Although, do you think I should leave one open and then have a ramp up to it (like Bel'Shir Beach)? Or just leave it? It might even out the balance of not having a ramp... IDK.

On August 28 2011 05:48 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
The problem with the 5 is not the defendability of the chokes or bases. The problem is that the zerg has to play with direct pushing and tacling the enemy army directly. This inherently leaves zerg at a disadvantage as the zerg army relies more on mobility and counterattacks.
A terran or protoss could simply push directly into the closest zerg base, besiege it and have no fear whatsoever of expanding two or three times.

Yeah, I see what you mean. Unfortunately that's kind of the design of the map. In all spawns you kinda half to push towards the center (top excepted) while expanding. And at this point I don't really know what to do to fix it... maybe make one of the bases a high ground and spread them out a little? Not sure... I'll play around some.

Again, thanks for the feedback.

HypertonicHydroponic

437 Posts

August 30 2011 12:52 GMT

#35

Ok gents, I thought this looked like fun so I slapped together something that I hope will at the very least get a "WTF?!" This map draws inspiration from classic Broodwar maps like Cauldron, Expedition, and The Hunters. It is quite asymmetrical and it is a ***seven player map***.

SEVEN PLAYER MAP???

seven player map...

SeVeN pLaYeR mAp !1!

After all, what could be more aysmmetrical than a seven player map?

I present to you, "Lands of Twisted Pleasure".

+ Show Spoiler +

The CCs will not be there upon starting a game... they are just there to show how things can fit. Not yet published, will be NA.

This is still a bit of a work in progress, but currently this is the layout. This map hopes to find its balance in its imbalance, much like the paradigm of three distinct races. I think the map's strongest point toward balance is by being somewhat horrible for each race in its own special way. Here's some analyzer to show the wildly varying games that will be played on this map:

+ Show Spoiler +

Mod plz fix the rez, thx!
[image loading]

And yes it is a square. 160x160 BW style ftw.

Oh and NO Xel'Naga towers. NO gold bases. NO rich vespene. NO rocks. NO line of sight blockers. Just Straight Up War.

RumbleBadger

322 Posts

August 30 2011 16:01 GMT

#36

On August 30 2011 21:52 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

The CCs will not be there upon starting a game... they are just there to show how things can fit. Not yet published, will be NA.

Mod plz fix the rez, thx!
[image loading]

And yes it is a square. 160x160 BW style ftw.

Oh and NO Xel'Naga towers. NO gold bases. NO rich vespene. NO rocks. NO line of sight blockers. Just Straight Up War.

You are crazy. Holy cow. I like don't even know where to begin when trying to analyze that map. o.o

And actually, I think it will be fairly balanced. There will never be a lack for expansion options, and every base seems to have 2 naturals. Scouting will be a huge pain in that batookie. '_' I mean, I won't even know where my opponent is until midgame. I might even do 2 hatches before I build a pool on this map. xD

Still, I'm really excited to see how this turns out.

fenX

France127 Posts

August 30 2011 19:08 GMT

#37

Updated my map :
+ Show Spoiler [View] +

Changes around north gold : removed the rocks on the ramp to the left and extended the cliff on the righ to allow mineral harass to make it harder to hold for 11 in 3 vs 11. Added a hole to the south so it won't be too much harder to defend compared to the other gold in 6' vs 11' in late game.
Changes around the middle plains : reworked the positionning of rocks, holes, towers and ramps in that area to make it more open and harder to defend on 5 bases for 6'.
Not sure yet it's 100% balanced for all matchups but I think it's better.
Rush distances are now :
- 11 vs 3 : 162 (main-main ground) 121 (main-main air) 120 (nat-nat ground)
- 11 vs 6 : 158 (main-main ground) 142 (main-main air) 119 (nat-nat ground)
- 3 vs 6 : 166 (main-main ground) 64 (main-main air) 132 (nat-nat ground)

On August 30 2011 21:52 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

The CCs will not be there upon starting a game... they are just there to show how things can fit. Not yet published, will be NA.

Players gonna hate you so much for that map you should hire a bodyguard. Protoss and terrans don't have enough room for their buildings, paths are so narrow zergs don't have room to move an army.
This concept could be fun if you do it on a 250x250 so you can have decent sizes for main bases and room for more open areas and real expansions (not thoses 4 minerals no gas). Also use wider ramps when it's not on possible mains, and prevent spawning in the closest positions, a rush distance of 73 main to main is ridiculously low.

Fearlezz

Croatia176 Posts

August 30 2011 21:07 GMT

#38

On August 31 2011 04:08 fenX wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

Updated my map :

Loving it so far, with a couple of more tweaks I could see this used in tournaments!

I got a minor suggestion; if I were you I'd play with the positioning of the bottom two Xel'Naga towers a bit.

As things are at the moment, when you look at the 11 vs 6 position, player spawning at 11 has a slight advantage in vision when they hold their tower since they have total sight over both main attack routes. The player spawning at 6 holding their XNT sees only 3/4 of the middle and 11 can sneak an army by to the left without 6 noticing. The opposite is not true.

I would suggest moving the middle XNT a bit to W or NW so 11 also only sees 3/4 of the middle attack path. Both towers would then provide a big advantage if held but wouldn't make you 100% secure and sure that you'll spot an attack if the enemy is careful enough to avoid XNT vision.

The only other thing I could see adding a bit more variety is making 11 vs 6 a bit more reaper scout friendly. You could achieve that by adding just a small part of pathable cliff right next to rocks between 3's third and 6's third. You would only need to modify one or two hexes there and making a small part of the cliff below 6's third's bottom gas pathable. for that and I think it would make a nice alternative reaper scouting path. And now that I took a better look at it, it would also apply to the 3 vs 6 position so double win right there.

And yeah, I'm a sucker for LOS blockers in mains for hiding tech and drops and it would suit the map a lot since it has somewhat of a marshland theme. I know, I know, the mains are quite small, so just ignore this and attribute it to my wishful thinking and wanting to unnecessary complicate things ^^

Hope you find the suggestions helpful.

The_Templar

your Country52797 Posts

August 30 2011 22:50 GMT

#39

On August 30 2011 21:52 HypertonicHydroponic wrote:
Ok gents, I thought this looked like fun so I slapped together something that I hope will at the very least get a "WTF?!" This map draws inspiration from classic Broodwar maps like Cauldron, Expedition, and The Hunters. It is quite asymmetrical and it is a ***seven player map***.

SEVEN PLAYER MAP???

seven player map...

SeVeN pLaYeR mAp !1!

After all, what could be more aysmmetrical than a seven player map?

I present to you, "Lands of Twisted Pleasure".

+ Show Spoiler +

The CCs will not be there upon starting a game... they are just there to show how things can fit. Not yet published, will be NA.

Mod plz fix the rez, thx!
[image loading]

And yes it is a square. 160x160 BW style ftw.

Oh and NO Xel'Naga towers. NO gold bases. NO rich vespene. NO rocks. NO line of sight blockers. Just Straight Up War.

HOLY-
Ok. Next weekend or the one after...
I UNLEASH THE THUNDER!!! *rumble rumble* Quiet up there!!!

fenX

France127 Posts

August 30 2011 22:56 GMT

#40

On August 31 2011 06:07 Fearlezz wrote:
As things are at the moment, when you look at the 11 vs 6 position, player spawning at 11 has a slight advantage in vision when they hold their tower since they have total sight over both main attack routes. The player spawning at 6 holding their XNT sees only 3/4 of the middle and 11 can sneak an army by to the left without 6 noticing. The opposite is not true.

That doesn't show in the analyzer pics but XNT has reduced sight range (18 instead of 22, analyzer show the regular 22), 11's XNT doesn't see the left destructible rocks and there's a small space out of range (about 3-4 cells) to sneak a small group of units from 6' to the north gold.
Also with 11's and 3's XNT you have vision to some part of the higher ground near the nat', it would help the attacker on his way there, 6's XNT range stops at the bottom of the ramp, so maybe it help less defending 6' but also help less attacking.

On August 31 2011 06:07 Fearlezz wrote:The only other thing I could see adding a bit more variety is making 11 vs 6 a bit more reaper scout friendly. You could achieve that by adding just a small part of pathable cliff right next to rocks between 3's third and 6's third. You would only need to modify one or two hexes there and making a small part of the cliff below 6's third's bottom gas pathable. for that and I think it would make a nice alternative reaper scouting path. And now that I took a better look at it, it would also apply to the 3 vs 6 position so double win right there.

I'm made it unpathable because I was worried about tanks drops there, but if it's not in range to siege the main building I guess it's acceptable, would create a little potential vulnerability to 6' as it's seems to be the easier to defend now.

On August 31 2011 06:07 Fearlezz wrote:And yeah, I'm a sucker for LOS blockers in mains for hiding tech and drops and it would suit the map a lot since it has somewhat of a marshland theme. I know, I know, the mains are quite small, so just ignore this and attribute it to my wishful thinking and wanting to unnecessary complicate things ^^

There already a ton of LoSB in the lower ground, won't that be too much of those ? I like the idea however, maybe I'll do it if it fits the aesthetics, maybe not for all bases.

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next All

Please or register to reply.

[Mapping Challenge] #1 Asymmetric Maps - Page 2

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming